The difference between an SLBM and SLCM is on operational policy. Do we have a policy of arming all our Brahmos with nuclear tips or even some of them? This is the doctrinal play. If you decide Brahmos is a nuclear missile then "any" brahmos launch will invoke a nuclear response.@olivers what is the difference in launch mechanism between Sagarika viz a viz Brahmos SLBM?
Sir K15 is only 700 km range max at 1200. Plus ATV is design for stealth and not to out run.
When I talk about SLBMs which are the primary second strike weapon, we talk about distances of over 2000km. The trident and the Indian SLBM are stated according to AC and saraswat to be 10.2 meters long and eventually 13 meters. 13 x 2.2 meters or 10.2 x 2.2 meters is necessary to reach the Trident distances. Why is that important? Do we want to just stay in the Indian ocean or do we intend to be a true blue water navy and go on agressive patrols across the globe? I think we intend to go on agressive patrols across the globe with submarine numbers of 12 ( of which 9 will be available most of the time ...). This indicates big power ambition with some exclusive SLBM or largely SLBM submarines, some hunter-killer submarines etc. An SLBM submarine runs from the enemy or sonar contact. A hunter killer submarine runs towards any sonar contact.
Now if we have a SLCM enabled submarine, also enabled with SLBM. What is our defense posture? What is the doctrine? Do we run towards the sonar ping or run away from the ping? The answer cannot be depends on the situation, at least ideally ... (The communication lines to submarines during war time is radio silence most of the time. The submarine goes silent after it receives communication to launch missiles and even when war starts to be ready and to save its skin. So conflicting goals for the same crew carrying an SLBM is unlikely for pure second strike weapons.) Why? The only reason for existence of an SLBM carrying submarine is the survive ... Survive the destruction of your country and retaliate by destroying the agressor. There will be very few SLCM's involved in this role, if any ... If you think India is a global power or is moving towards that doctrine, then these configurations will look funny to you. I believe in this classic school for at least SLBM carrying submarines and Indian Navy does too. So the first second and third nuclear second strike submarines doctrinally should have no SLCMs ... unless those are the only weapons you have .... Their only goal is survive survive and launch an SLCM which destroys your enemy without having to go right next to the Chinese coast or pakistani coast or even some other coast. We can do that from the IOR .... (If you base your play off IOR you will invite the Chinese into your backyard and if you base this off the south china sea littoral waters... good luck in the south china sea its shallow waters in most places in the south china sea. So an SLCM based second strike is vulnerable ..) I hope you see where I am driving with this. Hunter killer submarines as a class are the ones which are not doing well today. Because the soviet union broke up. American assets are too many for the Chinese to track. So Americans have converted the hunter killers to ssgn roles with cruise missiles. We have a lot of diesels to do the ssgn role for now to turn to these configurations in the nuclear submarine area. At least initially.
Now the hybrid subs with SLCM's and/or the special ops are all littoral or near littoral operation submarines. They can ply longer and across the globe if they are nuclear but usually the mission calls for them to be near the shore 1000 to 1500 km to launch their wares and even closer to launch special ops. This is the kind of weapon you would use against special interest operations during war. If you rely on these as a second strike weapon, well that's not how I see the Indian 12 nuclear submarine program of 2020. There will be a place for these submarines. Definitely, but the primary goal is the classic one which runs from any sonar ping to save itself to serve the country when there isn't much of a country left ...
A ballistic missile has a ballistic trajectory above the sea. A cruise missile has a cruise trajectory like a low terrain hugging mode above the sea. A cruise missile as opposed to an SLBM has a smaller diameter(usually). This allows for many of these critters to be in the same launch tube. A ballistic missile on the other hand is 1.1 m to 2.2 meters to move them to ranges in excess of 2000 km and usually 5000km. The ballistic missiles also tend to be longer. These could be anywhere in the world when they launch. So we should have the ability to strike Chinese coast from even 10,000 miles away from the submarine to have a credible deterrence. If you look at the AC and saraswat disclosures on our SLCMs almost all of them are 10.2 to 13 meters long and 2.2 meters or so in diameter.
To draw an analogy from the Agni series on the surface, Agni III may never be fielded by India. Therefore some of the initial tests with 1500km range may never be fielded on an Indian submarine ...
On the launch difference, most of these are cold canister launched. The second difference is an SLCM rarely carries a nuclear ordinance. SLCMs are weapons you use to take out ships and air craft carriers and some land targets of high strategic importance. If you go nuclear with SLCM you reduce the nuclear threshold. India is a responsible power and you will not do this unless you have very few options left on the table. It's like the Nasar missile of Pakistan. Do we want to do that to our nukes? Any missile might be a nuke so therefore reply with a nuke? Remember we don't have enemies who are non nuclear powers ... MAD is stabilizing only when you can make rational decisions. If all bhramos or cm's are nuclear what do I do as your enemy? Simple, I retaliate with nukes ... So you will lose entire weapons platforms in the thousands if they "could" be nuclear.
This is the same reason fractional orbital weapons are banned. The legal trick being you can test fractional orbital weapons but not do live tests with nukes on them Russia had a few of these fractional orbital weapons which can only be detected by satellites. If you follow the news, India wants to detect BM launches using satellites ...
We don't blindly follow the international standards, but they exist for very good reasons ... A 2.2 x 13 meter missile has a launch weight of x tons. Therefore a stable submarine to launch sub a missile from x depth needs to be of x displacement .... And silos are 2.2 to 2 meters internationally for a good reason ... Thats how big it needs to be to reach trident distances without having too much of a length beyond 13 meters so they can be maneuvered and can avoid detection ... So yes SLBM and SLCM's being discussed as if they are the same animal is crazy to me. Yes even those SLBM carrying submarines may have a few SLCMs to kill selected targets like a pesky carrier which is targeting it, in their primary mission of evading detection. But other than this minmal area where they should align we will be crazy as a nation to have too many roles for this one ... if we want deterrence ...
Na we are getting there. Our doctrine calls for carrying the warheads on these submarines. It's a survivable second strike weapon. Look at related news on Very Low frequency transmitter and an additional transmitter (I am lazy and I am not going to google it.) We are using both systems instead of one. In addition I am not sure if we are also investing or interested in laser communication devices. So the nukes will be on deterrence patrol all the time under-sea.@olivers
Ok it seems like you are indicating about operational doctrine, pardon me that I m not gone through your previous post (I am a lazy kind)
What I think Indian Nuke subs with a K-15 nuclear warhead would not actually ever leave of patrol duties with the exception of combat status patrolling, first of all we wont have the numbers and by the time we have the numbers K-15 would probably be decommissioned in favour of A-III/V styled SLBMs, Plus I dont think Indian missiles are mated with nuclear warheads as per national policy, well by the time we are able to have our own long range heavy SLBMs things may change with time, New policy and threats may persist, Last checked even PRC is not known to deploy SSBN with SLBMs in active patrolling. You wont really like to entrusting the red button in the hands of a few during peace time, US or Russia is a bit different for us to copy that. Note: Nukes are to the most defensive postures for us, a final resort or a middle finger shown to those nation who might do a nuclear blackmail, but not really an active patrolling doctrinal requirement. Neither do we have such an efficient foreign policy.
Pay, check@olivers
Ok it seems like you are indicating about operational doctrine, pardon me that I m not gone through your previous post (I am a lazy kind)
What I think Indian Nuke subs with a K-15 nuclear warhead would not actually ever leave of patrol duties with the exception of combat status patrolling, first of all we wont have the numbers and by the time we have the numbers K-15 would probably be decommissioned in favour of A-III/V styled SLBMs, Plus I dont think Indian missiles are mated with nuclear warheads as per national policy, well by the time we are able to have our own long range heavy SLBMs things may change with time, New policy and threats may persist, Last checked even PRC is not known to deploy SSBN with SLBMs in active patrolling. You wont really like to entrusting the red button in the hands of a few during peace time, US or Russia is a bit different for us to copy that. Note: Nukes are to the most defensive postures for us, a final resort or a middle finger shown to those nation who might do a nuclear blackmail, but not really an active patrolling doctrinal requirement. Neither do we have such an efficient foreign policy.
here is the news reportYusuf, name was changed to confuse the those who want to get info about our project (C-I-A). It was tested 10 times as SLBM and land version 4 times so total tests are 14. In 2011 they started production of this missile and yesterday test was final developmental test.
BTW Sagarika/K15/B05 are all name of same missile.
India successfully test fires underwater missile B-05 - The New Indian ExpressDeveloped by DRDO, the B-05 missile, formerly known as K-15 is about 10 metres in length and about one metre in diameter besides its launch weight about ten tonnes. This missile uses solid propellant. It can carry a conventional payload of about 500 kg and also be fitted with tactical nuclear warhead.
Launched underwater, it surges to the surface and is the world's best weapon in this class. The missile will equip the country's first nuclear-powered submarine ANS Arihant and if every thing goes as per the plan, the missile will soon be test fired from the indegenously built submarine. Meanwhile, the DRDO has begun the production of the missile.
That remains to be seen. The Chinese still don't go on bit patrol. Solid Command and control structure has to be in place to send hot patrols. It i have read a statement by some official that the Arihant will go on hot patrols. Lets see how it goes. It will no be immediate though. Only after a few years.when K15 will be in active service then it will be change of our nuke doctrine from physically separated nukes from missile to nukes on hair trigger alerts.
How good our subs are reasons to be seen. How noisy it silent. We will not go on a hot patrol till the end of this decade in all likelihoodChinese don't have the capability to go on a hot patrol. Their nuke subs are too noisy, IN wants the SSBN's on hot patrol but how soon remains to be seen.
Do you know for sure we don't do it right now? The question is rhetorical. Submarine patrols are never disclosed. Even if we have them on deterrent patrols we will never tell anyone we are on deterrent patrols.How good our subs are reasons to be seen. How noisy it silent. We will not go on a hot patrol till the end of this decade in all likelihood
Yeah right Brahmos tipped with nukes. a 300 kms range missile forms deterrent patrolDo you know for sure we don't do it right now? The question is rhetorical. Submarine patrols are never disclosed. Even if we have them on deterrent patrols we will never tell anyone we are on deterrent patrols.
We are already doing some deterrent patrols with the Akula. Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know. Mum is the word on anything submarine. That's the way every country operates. Unfortunately, India does have to disclose some things from time to time to prevent neighbors from agreeing to whatever is printed by Janes Defense and western non-proliferation experts.
DRDO, Shyam Sharan have already given them indigestion. They are yet to digest Indian missiles with the possibility of ABM avoidance and canister launched weapons. They seem to still be in the world of Pakistan is better than India. India has stayed stagnent for decades at 100 while Pakistan caught up. All silly notions. Fissile material production has been going on for the past 10 years. Remember Indian nukes are dual use domestic reactor based. We lost some in the civil nooclear deal. Otherwise there was no stoppage in production. A lot of the separated plants went under safeguards much later ...
Look at my answer: "Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know."Yeah right Brahmos tipped with nukes. a 300 kms range missile forms deterrent patrol
Akulas have vertical launch tubes for launch of missiles?
US has accounts for the number if deterrent patrols carried out and just recently Hans Kristnesen wrote a piece on how the number of deterrent patrols have fallen. You can get info on sub patrols using te US equivalent of RTI.
Rest of your post was OT and irrelevant to the subject
Look at my answer: "Now the question is what do these Akula carry? Bhramos tipped with nukes? or are they not carrying any nukes? We will not know."
If you think what I told you is equal to we are having deterrent patrols with 300km missiles. Then I can't help you. For all I know they might even be carrying k series missiles which were tested 10 times last decade. {The point being we really don't know what is the real range of any of our subs...} Deterrent patrol can also be within the IOR for now with a limited objective to preserve some second strike capability even if we have to get within 1000 km of shore. Akula is pretty effective in sonar signature and I would think since we operated it in 1990's, we already know what we want to do with it.
I don't know the range of the armaments carried by the Indian Akula or the "real" range of bhramos. The US version of those patrols don't show anything I am interested in. As far as I know Akula has vertical missile launch tubes. Did they remove the vertical missile launch tubes on the version provided to India? (which btw is a lease is something I am not privy to ..., neither are you.)
On the US information, I don't care. They are the ones who suggested we will never have MIRV, never have thermonukes as part of our policy, no mated-warheads and so on...{This is where the rest of my previous post fits in which you term irrelevant} The reports and everything produced in US is based on rational self-interest. They will suggest Indian sukois are better than F22's if it will help them get what they want at that point in time. None of the reports or released information is free of spin. On a second note the akula came in recently and therefore this information is not yet available.
What is the status of Akula btw? We will be going to sea trials? We will be testing missiles from Akula? Again I don't know the answer to this question as well. So the submarine force of ours has too little information in the open for us to know. Anyways, good luck with finding out what the submarine force is doing ...
I could be wrong about any or all of the stuff that follows, but feel free to connect the dots that exist.AFAIK...
1) Akula does not have VLS cells to launch missiles
2) Lease agreement mandates India not to use any nuclear weapons from Akula.
However from the last para you wrote, i somehow have a feeling hat you have confused Arihant wih Akula.
I could be wrong about any or all of the stuff that follows, but feel free to connect the dots that exist.
Airhant was supposed to go out to sea trials in 2010. It did not. Akula was delayed by a couple of years before it got to us. This was roughly during the same period. I am not confused about Akula vs Arihant. Where does Akula fit in? Will it be going to "sea trials"? Please co-relate this with the recent news on Arihant going to trials after monsoon. Akula has a role to play in this, which arrived recently. It could be logistic, it could be tracking, it could be used for training the crew before they perform similar roles on Arihant and plenty of other things. Maybe test only the undersea part of "an indian missile" before ignition using Akula to determine what effect the sudden reduction in weight will have on the stability of the platform experimentally on a known stable platform before trying it on the new platform.
I would like open-source literature for 1 and 2. I don't know if they are true or false. For 2, even if such a clause exists the wording of the restriction is very critical.
Eg.
India will not use Akula for launching nuclear weapons. vs.
India will not use Akula to launch ballistic missiles.
The second restriction is more stringent than the first.
If 1 is true and there are no VLS cells then 2 does not make too much of a difference. I haven't seen any credible reference on the VLS tubes being absent in open literature.
As much as Russia is a party to the restrictions on the MTCR and other restrictions. They don't apply to everyone. Please read the wiki links on semi-cryogenic technology co-operation with Ukraine(?) Uncle sam and Ukraine had quiet a big consultation. It is not related to our missile program. Just to make this abundantly clear, but the technology we are currently getting "consultation and design help" is MTCR technology. Similarly MTCR did not prevent UK from getting and using ballistic missiles for their subs from US. Theoretically MTCR prohibits that transfer. The same is true for a lot of projects.
The French and the Russians will work around the restrictions for India. Similar to how UK and US will work around restrictions when it suits them. It's never officially on paper though, except when you have cases like the wiki-leaks cable with Ukraine. Anyways, it will be fun to watch the "trials" of Arihant being reported in the media.
My personal take on this, these tests were completed or already showing early signs of success. Some missiles were fired etc. This has always been how the submarine force has acted in India with the missile tests. I will be surprised if any of these "fail" after the monsoon, but that's just me. I don't have literature to back this claim except to point to the 10 launches from under-sea platforms in the last decade or so, which was replaced in open-literature with the 2013 successful launch of K-15 with a video. Either the earlier 10 launches news reports were untrue or the 2013 was a spin on the reality to distort the intelligence gathering efforts and serve a different objective.